From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] early_res: seperate common memmap func from e820.c to fw_memmap.cy Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:37:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20100322193720.GA2844@elte.hu> References: <4BA6EA62.1030603@kernel.org> <20100321.210023.209981130.davem@davemloft.net> <4BA6F1F6.3070102@kernel.org> <20100321.213350.176660494.davem@davemloft.net> <20100322092809.GA20607@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:57621 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755210Ab0CVThd (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:37:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: David Miller , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , yinghai@kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, hpa@zytor.com, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Ingo, > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > ( Cc:-ed Andrew and Linus as this is a general design/policy matter wrt. > > memory management. ) > > > > * David Miller wrote: > > > > > From: Yinghai Lu > > > Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:28:38 -0700 > > > > > > >> > > > >> That action means you absolutely don't value our feedback at all. > > > > > > > > [PATCH 01/20] x86: add find_e820_area_node > > > > is addressing your concern that early_res didn't handle memory cross the nodes problem. > > > > > > Now I know that you _REALLY_ aren't listening to us. > > > [ He has done a bit more than just to simply listen: he seems to > > have written a patch which he thinks is addressing the concerns you > > pointed out. It might not be the response you wished for (and it > > might be inadequate) for but it sure gives me the impression of him > > listening to you - unless by 'listening' you mean 'follow my exact > > opinion without argument'. ] > > I tend to disagree. Fixing the bug pointed out by Dave is not really a > good argument about listening. > > The main point is that there is still no answer why lmb cannot be used and > the reposted patch still is a full move of the x86 e820 functions into > kernel/fw_memmap.c. > > That's not a generalization, that's simply a relocation of x86 code to > kernel/. And I agree with Dave and Ben that this is an useless exercise. ok - i think you are right. Yinghai, mind having a look at using lib/lmb.c for all this? Ingo